M G F Longo1, J Conklin2,3,4, S F Cauley3,4, K Setsompop3,4,5, Q Tian3, D Polak3,6,7, M Polackal2, D Splitthoff7, W Liu7, R G González2,4, P W Schaefer2,4, J E Kirsch2, O Rapalino2, S Y Huang2,3,4,5. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (M.G.F.L., J.C., M.P., R.G.G., P.W.S., J.E.K., O.R., S.Y.H.) mfigueirolongo@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. From the Departments of Radiology (M.G.F.L., J.C., M.P., R.G.G., P.W.S., J.E.K., O.R., S.Y.H.). 3. Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, (J.C., S.F.C., K.S., Q.T., D.P., S.Y.H.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Harvard Medical School (J.C., S.F.C., K.S., R.G.G., P.W.S., S.Y.H.), Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology (K.S., S.Y.H.), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Physics and Astronomy (D.P.), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. 7. Siemens (D.P., D.S., W.L.), Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Volumetric brain MR imaging typically has long acquisition times. We sought to evaluate an ultrafast MPRAGE sequence based on Wave-CAIPI (Wave-MPRAGE) compared with standard MPRAGE for evaluation of regional brain tissue volumes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed scan-rescan experiments in 10 healthy volunteers to evaluate the intraindividual variability of the brain volumes measured using the standard and Wave-MPRAGE sequences. We then evaluated 43 consecutive patients undergoing brain MR imaging. Patients underwent 3T brain MR imaging, including a standard MPRAGE sequence (acceleration factor [R] = 2, acquisition time [TA] = 5.2 minutes) and an ultrafast Wave-MPRAGE sequence (R = 9, TA = 1.15 minutes for the 32-channel coil; R = 6, TA = 1.75 minutes for the 20-channel coil). Automated segmentation of regional brain volume was performed. Two radiologists evaluated regional brain atrophy using semiquantitative visual rating scales. RESULTS: The mean absolute symmetrized percent change in the healthy volunteers participating in the scan-rescan experiments was not statistically different in any brain region for both the standard and Wave-MPRAGE sequences. In the patients undergoing evaluation for neurodegenerative disease, the Dice coefficient of similarity between volumetric measurements obtained from standard and Wave-MPRAGE ranged from 0.86 to 0.95. Similarly, for all regions, the absolute symmetrized percent change for brain volume and cortical thickness showed <6% difference between the 2 sequences. In the semiquantitative visual comparison, the differences between the 2 radiologists' scores were not clinically or statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Brain volumes estimated using ultrafast Wave-MPRAGE show low intraindividual variability and are comparable with those estimated using standard MPRAGE in patients undergoing clinical evaluation for suspected neurodegenerative disease.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Volumetric brain MR imaging typically has long acquisition times. We sought to evaluate an ultrafast MPRAGE sequence based on Wave-CAIPI (Wave-MPRAGE) compared with standard MPRAGE for evaluation of regional brain tissue volumes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed scan-rescan experiments in 10 healthy volunteers to evaluate the intraindividual variability of the brain volumes measured using the standard and Wave-MPRAGE sequences. We then evaluated 43 consecutive patients undergoing brain MR imaging. Patients underwent 3T brain MR imaging, including a standard MPRAGE sequence (acceleration factor [R] = 2, acquisition time [TA] = 5.2 minutes) and an ultrafast Wave-MPRAGE sequence (R = 9, TA = 1.15 minutes for the 32-channel coil; R = 6, TA = 1.75 minutes for the 20-channel coil). Automated segmentation of regional brain volume was performed. Two radiologists evaluated regional brain atrophy using semiquantitative visual rating scales. RESULTS: The mean absolute symmetrized percent change in the healthy volunteers participating in the scan-rescan experiments was not statistically different in any brain region for both the standard and Wave-MPRAGE sequences. In the patients undergoing evaluation for neurodegenerative disease, the Dice coefficient of similarity between volumetric measurements obtained from standard and Wave-MPRAGE ranged from 0.86 to 0.95. Similarly, for all regions, the absolute symmetrized percent change for brain volume and cortical thickness showed <6% difference between the 2 sequences. In the semiquantitative visual comparison, the differences between the 2 radiologists' scores were not clinically or statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Brain volumes estimated using ultrafast Wave-MPRAGE show low intraindividual variability and are comparable with those estimated using standard MPRAGE in patients undergoing clinical evaluation for suspected neurodegenerative disease.
Authors: Manja Lehmann; Abdel Douiri; Lois G Kim; Marc Modat; Dennis Chan; Sebastien Ourselin; Josephine Barnes; Nick C Fox Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Giovanni B Frisoni; Nick C Fox; Clifford R Jack; Philip Scheltens; Paul M Thompson Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Berkin Bilgic; Borjan A Gagoski; Stephen F Cauley; Audrey P Fan; Jonathan R Polimeni; P Ellen Grant; Lawrence L Wald; Kawin Setsompop Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Daniel Polak; Stephen Cauley; Susie Y Huang; Maria Gabriela Longo; John Conklin; Berkin Bilgic; Ned Ohringer; Esther Raithel; Peter Bachert; Lawrence L Wald; Kawin Setsompop Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jorge Jovicich; Silvester Czanner; Xiao Han; David Salat; Andre van der Kouwe; Brian Quinn; Jenni Pacheco; Marilyn Albert; Ronald Killiany; Deborah Blacker; Paul Maguire; Diana Rosas; Nikos Makris; Randy Gollub; Anders Dale; Bradford C Dickerson; Bruce Fischl Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: H Rusinek; M J de Leon; A E George; L A Stylopoulos; R Chandra; G Smith; T Rand; M Mourino; H Kowalski Journal: Radiology Date: 1991-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P Scheltens; D Leys; F Barkhof; D Huglo; H C Weinstein; P Vermersch; M Kuiper; M Steinling; E C Wolters; J Valk Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1992-10 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Christopher M Kipps; R Rhys Davies; Joanna Mitchell; Jillian J Kril; Glenda M Halliday; John R Hodges Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2007-03-19 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Daniel Polak; Daniel Nicolas Splitthoff; Bryan Clifford; Wei-Ching Lo; Susie Y Huang; John Conklin; Lawrence L Wald; Kawin Setsompop; Stephen Cauley Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Min Lang; Samuel Cartmell; Azadeh Tabari; Daniel Briggs; Oleg Pianykh; John Kirsch; Stephen Cauley; Wei-Ching Lo; Seretha Risacher; Augusto Goncalves Filho; Marc D Succi; Otto Rapalino; Pamela Schaefer; John Conklin; Susie Y Huang Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: H J Baek; Y J Heo; D Kim; S Y Yun; J W Baek; H W Jeong; H J Choo; J Y Lee; S-I Oh Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Gaia Olivo; Martin Lövdén; Amirhossein Manzouri; Laura Terlau; Bo Jenner; Arian Jafari; Sven Petersson; Tie-Qiang Li; Håkan Fischer; Kristoffer N T Månsson Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: C Ngamsombat; A L M Gonçalves Filho; M G F Longo; S F Cauley; K Setsompop; J E Kirsch; Q Tian; Q Fan; D Polak; W Liu; W-C Lo; R Gilberto González; P W Schaefer; O Rapalino; J Conklin; S Y Huang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Augusto Lio M Goncalves Filho; John Conklin; Maria Gabriela F Longo; Stephen F Cauley; Daniel Polak; Wei Liu; Daniel N Splitthoff; Wei-Ching Lo; John E Kirsch; Kawin Setsompop; Pamela W Schaefer; Susie Y Huang; Otto Rapalino Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 4.003